* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote:> On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 09:11 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:> > * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote:> > > On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 15:47 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:> > > > Hi,> > > > > > > > Re-fresh of updates against latest -tip tree.> > > > > > Thanks Jason,> > > > > > I started looking at them, I should have comments tomorrow (if I have> > > any comments ;)> > > > > > > > > > > I've tried to split this update up somewhat, but I've only succeeded to split> > > > out the dynamic debug bits. The interface changes and re-write are quite> > > > intertwined.> > > > > > > > I believe this update should address all the comments from the previous posting> > > > except for Mathieu's request for a section of jump label pointers that point to> > > > the jump label structures (since the compiler might leave gaps in the jump label> > > > structures).> > > > > > The jump label structures is a list of 3 pointers, correct? I doubt that> > > gcc would place any holes in it as they are all aligned by natural word> > > size.> > > > > > > Hi Steven,> > > > Can you explain what would prevent gcc from aligning these 3 pointers> > (total of 24 bytes on 64-bit architectures) on 32-bytes ? Also, could> > you point out what would refrain the linker from aligning the start of> > object sections on the next 32-bytes (thus power of two) address> > multiple ?> > Maybe it would be just easier to add another long ;)> > Seriously, it would. Then it would be 32 bytes on 64bit and 16 bytes on> 32bit. Then I guess we can have our guarantee without doing a large> change to have this indirect pointer and still waste sizeof(long) bytes> in having it.> > Just insert a long "Reserved" word.

I agree that this solution can work, but it's only because the"object" definition is done in assembly in this case (and not in C, likewe did for trace event and tracepoints). Padding to power of 2 multiplesshould make the linker happy. There should be a nice comment besidethese padding elements though.

Thanks,

Mathieu

> > -- Steve> > > > > I think we need to be a bit more strict in our interpretation of what> > guarantee gcc/ld provide and don't provide with respect to section and> > structure alignment.> > > > As it stands now, the section alignment of jump labels looks half-broken> > on most architectures, and this *is* a big deal. I would really like to> > see a patch for this (it can be a separate patch) going in for .39.> > > > Thank you,> > > > Mathieu> > > >